It is mostly about stories on the Korean people’s struggles against the U. S. bases in Korea. Hope many of you find some clues and sources here. Please just be kind and fair to the source.많은 분들께서 여기에서 단서들과 자료들을 찾길 바랍니다. 다만 단서와 자료의 기원에 대해 친절하고 공정하게 표기해 주시면 감사하겠읍니다.

The Cheonan ship incident is becoming more and more interesting. The result of the analysis of the amorphous oxidized aluminum that has been presented as the most scientific evidence, has turned the situation into which the Ministry of the National Defense has acknowledged its irrationality itself, as well.

정부는 왜 그토록 천안함을 감추려고 안간힘을 쓰는가?

Why does the ROK government make a desperate effort to hide [the truth] of the Cheonan ship incident?

선거용으로 쓰기위한 카드로서 천안함은 그 용도가 다한것이 아닌가?

For the card for the use of the election, has not the Cheonan Ship [incident] been used up with all its usage?

그 이유가 미국에 있을 것 이라고 짐작한다면 지나친 상상일까?

Will it be the excessive imagination if one guesses the reason is in the United States?

Even though he Cheonan ship incident has produced innumerable questions since the examination of the reason of its being sunken and still remains with many question marks yet solved, whatever the reasons, it has driven the wind against the North Korea and [the issue of] the delay of the transfer of the wartime operational control.

It may not be the excessive thought that the United States who suffers for the economic crisis, is establishing and carrying out the certain kind plan with the ROK government, to utilize the Cheonan ship [incident] to reduce the stationing cost of the USFK, to export arms following the ROK acceptance of the MD system, and further, as the key of the conclusion for the SK-US FTA.

Is not it the reason for that-even though the United States had announced its official position that the Cheonan ship incident was no more than the incident that happened for its self-containing problem, however not long after, it began to be in accord with the position and will of the ROK government who wanted to preoccupy the advantageous position in the local election, using the current against the North Korea, because the joint interests of the both governments fitted each other?

Even though the current government is saying that there would be no increment of the sharing defense cost because of the delay of the transfer of the wartime control, the involvement in the MD system, above all, should be prevented.

It is because in case of entry in the MD system, the Pyeongteak base and the naval base that is driven to be constructed in the Jeju would be inevitably the US MD bases and because of the geopolitical character of South Korea that is located in the center of the North East Asia, it is too obvious that they would be the first primary targets by China.

Even though, there would happen no war, what would be the interests we would get if we make China and Russia as enemies? The [prospect to] economically cut with China would extend not only to the collapse of the innumerable small business but also to the tremendous economy in our country and to cut with Russia means all the far-reaching plans toward the leap in the 21st century, such as the natural gas pipeline in Siberia, possibility of the oil-drilling in the arctic sea, curtailment of the sea transport route with the Europe by the path-finding of the North Pole route and the railroad crossing the continent that links between the Korean peninsula and Europe, be all in vain.

보수진영측이 말하는 안보는 무엇을 위한 안보인가? 국력을 극도로 소모하며 막아야 할 적이 늘어날 수록 좋다는 것인가?

For what is the security that the conservative block says? Are they saying it would be better if the numbers of the enemies increase, that should be blocked by extremely consuming the national power?

적은 적을 수록 좋다. 적을 줄이는 최선의 길은 외교와 문화교류, 경제협력이다.

It is better if the numbers of the enemies are smaller. The best way to reduce the numbers of enemies is the diplomacy, cultural exchange ad economic co-operation.

Even a portion of the conservative block heightens their voice that [the government] should rather be handed-over with the wartime operational control in the early time. However it seems that the position of the government is, only by depending on the United States, it can strengthen its security.

미국 에만 외교와 군사를 의존하는 한 동북아에서 우리는 항상 중국과 러시아와의 외교상 견제를 받을 수 밖에 없다.

In the North East Asia where we only rely the diplomacy and military on the United States, we cannot but be always diplomatically restrained by China and Russia.

편중된 외교정책으로는 한.일.중 정상회담조차 실질적인 결과를 도출해내지 못하고 결렬될 가능성이 더 높은것이다.

With the partial diplomacy policy, there is the high possibility that even the ROK-Japan-China summit meeting would not bring out any substantial result and would be broken down.

G20 가입국가인 대한민국은 언제까지 자주적인 외교와 군사주권을 포기하며 나가야하는 것인가.

Until when will the Republic of Korea, the G20-involving nation, go forward giving up its self-reliant diplomacy and military sovereignty?

No comments:

Post a Comment

About the Site

The site is managed by an artist living in the South Korea. The photo in the profile is the children in Osan, near the Pyeongtaek where the planned US military base hub in the north east Asia and a large US air base exists. They are the children of a teacher who manages the Children Peace School there. As a part of the class programs, the children in the class drew and wrote in a cloth, their wishes of the peaceful unification of Korea some day.